Computer underground Digest Sun Dec 5 1993

 


Computer underground Digest    Sun  Dec 5 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 91

                           ISSN  1004-042X


       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)

       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe

       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth

                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala

                          Ian Dickinson

       Copy Editor: Tamen O. DeSchrew, III


CONTENTS, #5.91 (Dec 5 1993)

File 1--Anarchy Gone Awry

File 2--PC Security books reprints material from AIS (Review)

File 3--Apple Computers bitten by Conservatives

File 4--GAO Report on Computers and Privacy

File 5--New Docs Reveal NSA Role in FBI Digital Tele Proposal

File 6--REMINDER: CFP '94 SCHOLARSHIP DEADLINE APPROACHING

File 7--DIAC-94 Call for Participation


Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are

available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The

editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)

or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL

60115.


Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest

news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of

LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT

libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in

the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"

On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;

on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG

WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020

CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted

nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE:   from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;

          In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493


ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:

  AUSTRALIA:      ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.

  EUROPE:         ftp.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)

  UNITED STATES:

                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud

                  etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18)  in /pub/CuD/cud

                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud

                  halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud

                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)

  KOREA:          ftp: cair.kaist.ac.kr in /doc/eff/cud


COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing

information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of

diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long

as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and

they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that

non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise

specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles

relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are

preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts

unless absolutely necessary.


DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent

            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all

            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not

            violate copyright protections.


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Thu, 02 Dec 93 04:36:10 -0700

From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@LONGS.LANCE.COLOSTATE.EDU>

Subject: File 1--Anarchy Gone Awry


Mr. Leichter raises some extremely pivotal issues in CUD #5.90 related

to the `anarchy' of the Internet. B.Sterling is the author of one of

the most brilliantly colorful characterizations and metaphors of the

Internet as `anarchic', comparing its evolution and development to that

of the English language:


  > The Internet's `anarchy' may seem strange or even unnatural,  but

  > it makes a certain deep and basic sense.  It's rather like the

  > `anarchy' of the English language.  Nobody rents English, and

  > nobody owns English.  As an English-speaking person, it's up

  > to you to learn how to speak English properly and make whatever

  > use you please of it (though the government provides certain

  > subsidies to help you learn to read and write a bit).

  > Otherwise, everybody just sort of pitches in, and somehow the

  > thing evolves on its own, and somehow turns out workable.  And

  > interesting.  Fascinating, even.  Though a lot of people earn

  > their living from using and exploiting and teaching  English,

  > `English' as an institution is public property, a public good.

  > Much the same goes for the Internet.  Would English  be improved

  > if the `The English Language, Inc.' had a board of directors

  > and a chief executive officer, or a President and a Congress?

  > There'd probably be a lot fewer new words in English, and a lot

  > fewer new ideas.


Unfortunately, though, having attended a lecture by Mr. Sterling and

having read `The Hacker Crackdown', I think he has a tendency to

overdramatize and glorify quasi-criminal behavior and rebellious,

subversive, revolutionary aspects of social structures, including those

of the Internet. In my view, to the contrary the Internet is largely

held together with the glue of social cohesion and human civility, and

ingredients that are destructive to that order are likewise toxic to

Cyberspace, and that, conversely, virtually all of the excruciating

poison in the bloodstream today can be traced to violations and

perversions of that trust. (Unfortunately, the English language is

itself subject to unpleasant, corrupt, or toxic uses such as for

profanity, disinformation, and lies, which are prevented or at least

minimized through rejections by honest people.) I agree with Mr.

Leichter in the belief (to paraphrase Twain) that `reports of the

anarchy on the Internet are greatly exaggerated'.


Leichter:

>The Internet has been

>described as an anarchy, but in fact only relatively small parts of

>the Internet are actually anarchic.


I would like to go further than this and suggest that the Internet has

been over-promoted as `anarchic' by certain subversive, quasi-criminal

segments that have found a tenacious hold there, namely extremist

libertarians and `Cryptoanarchists'. The Cryptoanarchist cause is

closely associated with the Cypherpunk founders E.Hughes and T.C.May

(characterized particularly by the latter's infamous signature), who in

my view appear to promote not merely `privacy for the masses' and `the

cryptographic revolution', but at least condone or tolerate the use of

collections of imaginary identities to manipulate and deceive others,

and even to evade legitimate government actions such as criminal

prosecutions. My most strident requests for their position, personal

knowledge, and potential involvement in this practice have gone

unanswered, evaded, and repressed over many weeks, but I have many

statements from followers that might be regarded as `cult fanatics'

about the Liberating Effects of `pseudoanonymity', which they exalt as

True Anonymity.


In my opinion, in this regard of the ease of creating fake identities,

the `anarchic' vulnerability of the Internet reaches its peak in

undesirable and socially poisonous consequences, which people are

bloodily battling daily on many diverse mailing lists and Usenet

groups. In my experience, the Internet inhabitants I have found who

most fanatically worship the Internet `anarchy' seem to be closely

associated with criminally subversive aims of pornography distribution,

tax evasion, black marketeering, and overthrow of governments, goals

which are all masked in much of the eloquent Cryptoanarchist dogma and

rhetoric. While some of us have glimpsed various hideous corners of

Cyberspatial Hell, those who subscribe to the Liberating Religion of

Anarchy are in their Paradise on the Internet As We Know It. I call

their Utopia a Ticking Time Bomb and a Recipe for an Apocalypse.


I have come to these (admittedly melodramatic) conclusions after ~10

months and ~3500 messages of generally unpleasant and at times

excruciatingly troubling and painful reading and participation on the

Cypherpunks list and many personal communications with the Cypherpunk

leaders including E.Hughes, T.C.May, and J.Gilmore. In fact, in my

opinion the `Psychopunk Manifesto' parody in CUD #5.89, which longtime

cypherpunk list subscriber P.Ferguson describes in 5.90 as having `made

its rounds in the cyberspatial world', actually in many ways comes

closer to delineating the actual cypherpunk agenda than the one

authored by founder E.Hughes on soda.berkeley.edu:

/pub/cypherpunks/rants/A_Cypherpunk's_Manifesto.  The satire is

actually a reformulated version of the original Manifesto, and the

former's amazing meme-virus penetration of the  into the cyberspatial

psyche that P.Ferguson alludes to is indicative of its resonance over the

 latter.


I gave the Cypherpunks the most extraordinary benefit of the doubt for

months, far beyond that of a reasonable cyberspatial inhabitant. But

now I must warn everyone who can hear me that if they assign the

`cypherpunks' as an organization the same credibility as a group like

EFF or CPSR they are dangerously, perhaps disastrously, misguided. They

appear to me to the contrary to be the cultivators of a flourishing

conspiracy and essentially the first Cyberspatial guerilla and

terrorist group! The Psychopunk satirization of the Cryptoanarchists is

representative of this Internet Anarchy Gone Awry.


More information on the CryptoAnarchist & Cypherpunk agenda can be

found in RISKS 15.25, 15.27, and 15.28x (FTP crvax.sri.com, directory

RISKS:). I also have an essay `Joy of Pseudospoofing', regarding the

dangerous consequences and poisonous effects of the manipulations of

fake cyberspatial identities such as on the Internet by

Cryptoanarchists, available to anyone who requests it from me by email

at <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>.


* * *


I think that many people have mistaken the word `anarchic,' implying no

overseeing authority or order (which the Internet is less) with the

word `decentralized' (which the Internet is more). Again, the

Internet has many regulatory and self-governing systems and orders.

For example, connecting sites are required to implement a certain

minimum set of software standards and prevent or even root out

corruptions in their local sites and software. We have centralized

databases that require the registration of domains for fees. A complex

network of agreements and policies governs interconnectivity and

communication, and a complicated interplay of elements affects basic

content such as `commercial vs. academic.' Lack of some of these

regulations and protocols would be disastrous.


Leichter:

>Most of the Internet, in fact, is

>better described as self-governing.  There are a variety of social

>norms concerning network use and interactions.  One doesn't post

>messages to unrelated groups.  One doesn't evade moderation

>restrictions.  One maintains a certain (rather limited, it must be

>admitted) degree of restraint in how one describes other network

>participants.  There are few effective mechanisms for enforcing these

>norms, and they are certainly broken on an all-too-regular basis; but

>the network continues to function because social pressure *can* be

>applied to those who become too annoying; and in the most outrageous

>cases, it's possible to remove the offenders' access to the net.


I advocate that we build new formal mechanisms to enforce this order!

We have for too long pretended that a central element of the Internet

is not integral to it, namely that of the `degree of restraint over

network participants' exerted through `social pressure'. Let us codify

and formalize these `norms concerning network use and interactions' and

develop systems that enforce them! I believe such systems can be

developed that do not stray from the sacred Internet tradition of

decentralization of control and freedom from censorship. Why should we

continue to subject ourselves to the torture of `few effective

mechanisms for enforcing these norms broken on an all-too-regular basis'?


One of my most enduring Cyberspatial hallucinations is that of a

Ratings server. A Ratings server would be a massive distributed network

for the propagation of information similar to Usenet, and could

conceivably be built upon it. But the Ratings server is not

Information, as Usenet is, it is Information about Information. Anyone

can post an arbitrary message to the Ratings server that refers to

Information somewhere else in Cyberspace. It is in a sense a Rating of

that Information. The Information could be *anything* -- a mailing

list, a person, a particular Usenet posting, an FTP site. But postings

on the Ratings server can be perused by anyone, and anyone can

contribute Ratings to the server or indicate their own opinion on the

existing Ratings. Different mechanisms exist such that some Ratings are

`local' and some are updated globally.


The fantastic possibilities of this system are evident upon some

reflection and consideration. We could establish arbitrary new groups

that have *formal* requirements that are matched by Ratings servers.

For example, we could require that new sites that enter the Internet be

`trusted' by an existing site. We could require that membership in

certain groups requires a certain amount of collateral peer approval,

with automatic suspension or expulsion as the consequences for

violating it! We could have *meaningful* polls on arbitrary issues. We

could have news servers that automatically sort and archive articles

according to their passing certain Ratings thresholds. We could

restrict the influence of troublemakers! These are all examples of

strengthening and formalizing the informal social orders that are, in

my opinion, today just barely holding the Internet together. With a

Ratings system, I think the civility of the Internet would increase to

a fantastic degree. In short, we could have our *own* cyberspatial government!


Note that there is no centralized authority or unfair influence in this

system, unless people corrupt their servers. When everyone who has

joined a group *individually* decides to screen their postings of

messages that fail to meet a certain `quality' or posters who have a

certain `reputation', that is not Orwellian Censorship but the

beautiful Internet freedom and right of Bozo Filtering. When everyone

who joins a group *agrees* to a charter that may bar troublemakers

based on Ratings, no one can claim they are being unfairly oppressed.


Other extremely interesting implementation issues in the use of the

Ratings servers can be addressed in detail. For example, the use of

cryptographic protocols to ensure the integrity of voting or privacy of

certain entries will certainly prove invaluable and even critical to

their development. The optimal protocols for the localization or

distribution of votes will surely be subject to extremely fascinating

and fruitful research. In my view the concept of a Ratings server is

wide open territory and holds some immensely promising potential in

finally, valiantly slaying the dreaded, ugly, vicious Signal to Noise

Monsters harassing, terrorizing, and torturing us everywhere on the

Internet, to be replaced with Shining Castles.


I urge anyone interested in developing `civilized systems for

cyberspace' to subscribe to a new group I have helped start with

J.Helgingius (owner of the popular and revolutionary anon.penet.fi

anonymous server) called the Cypherwonks, dedicated to openness,

honesty, and cooperation on the Internet, and building sophisticated

new systems to promote social harmony in Future Cyberspace. We are

particularly fascinated with the possibilities of `Electronic

Democracy'. (Send a message to `MajorDomo@lists.eunet.fi' with the body

the commands `info' or `subscribe cypherwonks'.)


I fervently hope that the glorifications and manipulations of Internet

Anarchy by mouth-frothing libertarian extremists, Cryptoanarchists,

and sympathizers can be adequately controlled and minimized in the

future, and some harmonious systems and effective countermeasures

along the lines of the Rating server can be established by visionaries

and tinkerers, but in any case, for the sake of humanity's integrity,

sanity, and well-being, I pray that Future Cyberspace is far less

Anarchic than the Current Internet.


------------------------------


Date: 24 Nov 93 15:32:40 EST

From: Urnst Kouch - Crypt Newsletter <70743.1711@COMPUSERVE.COM>

Subject: File 2--PC Security books reprints material from AIS (Review)


"NETWORK SECURITY SECRETS" BENEFITS FROM PUBLIC ACCESS INFORMATION ON

THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY'S 'UNDERGROUND' SECURITY BULLETIN BOARD

SYSTEM


"Network Security Secrets," by David Stang, Ph.D., and Sylvia Moon,

(IDG Books, $49.95) is the first mainstream publication which benefits

directly from the accumulated data on Kim Clancy's Dept. of Treasury

bulletin board system (AIS), gagged earlier this year.


board supervised by the Department of Treasury contained unadulterated

hacker files which were given to callers interested in the material.

Other computer security workers and anti-virus developers mounted a

smear campaign which landed in the pages of The Washington Post,

causing the system to withdraw the information.  The original argument

had been that it was information which would most benefit security

managers unable to find the material elsewhere.  The publication of

"Network Security Secrets," proves the argument a valid one, although

it tries hard to deny it.


In keeping with the political correctness of the times (read

_hypocrisy_), the book fails to directly cite the material gathered

from the Dept. of Treasury system while reprinting portions of it

essentially verbatim.


Of course, this makes "Network Security Secrets" a very interesting

read.


One of Stang's central points in "Security Secrets" is that good

security stems from bringing necessary information to the workers

employed where the rubber meets the road.  This practice, he writes,

is often opposed to management interested only in imposing a rigid

heirarchical structure on the workplace.  The workers who will have to

deal with security problems such as intrusion from desk-top dial-ups,

password and access control plus the occasional virus aren't thought

to be trustworthy enough to be brought into the information loop.


"Network Security Secrets" says this is bad and it's correct.


Consequently, where does quality information come from; where is it

gathered?


In the chapter "Bulletin Boards and Security" under "Looking at the

Dark Side," Stang published a screen display taken from the Department

of Treasury, of which he says, "We doubt the agency was aware of this

part of its board," which presumes quite a bit, incorrectly, I might

add.


In any case, "This part of the board" lists the hacking files culled

from  PHRACK and other underground journals and BBS's. The data

addresses viruses, telephonic and network security concerns. "Manly

Hacking" is one such entry.  Written by "Shit-Kicking Jim," it was

only found on Clancy's system prior to publication in a later issue of

PHRACK.


"Network Security Secrets" also reprints an underground document

gained from AIS called "Hacking Novell Local Area Networks" and marks

it with one of those happy little icons computer books are seeded with

to satisfy readers whose reading comprehension is deemed not much

beyond "First Grade Coloring Book Exercises."


The icon is a treasure chest marked "Secret:  This icon points to

information which gives some special insight into network security."


The book also republishes material on network hacking programs

NETCRACK and GETIT, a resident password and keystroke leech, all

gained from AIS.


So that answers the question: Yes, information written by the computer

underground is valuable, worthy of exposure in a $50 mainstream

computer volume.


By the same token, Stang writes, "This is a sensitive subject, and

some may argue the information may land into the wrong hands. We'll

argue that it's already in the wrong hands and the 'good guys' need to

know what they're up against."  And that's the same argument Treasury

used to defend AIS, a system Stang labels from "the Dark Side." What a

poor sport!


Stang and Moon wrestle on and off with the idea of information access

throughout the book, coming down more in favor of those who weirdly

think that by publishing such information, you somehow endorse it.


They mention book publishers who specialize in so-called fringe

subjects as lock-picking and personal revenge.  "No, we won't give you

their address!" they write.


In the same paragraph "Network Security" mentions "Make 'Em Pay," one

paperback devoted to practical jokes and payback techniques.

Published by Lyle Stuart, I found "Make 'Em Pay" in the humor section

of Crown Books, the largest generic bookstore chain in California. So

much for the stone reality of access control, a reality which

corporate management appears to work hard to ignore.


Despite these major idiosyncracies, "Network Security Secrets" is

still a better than average book on the subject.  Stang works hard to

avoid jargon, failing only when he hands off to someone else in a

chapter on encryption: ". . . the DES was promulgated by NIST to

provide a system that protects the confidentiality and integrity of

the federal government's sensitive unclassified computer information.

FIPS PUB 46 is based on work at IBM and has been approved as the

American National Standard X3.92-1981/R1987." Sadly, it appears there

will never be a shortage of computer writers who specialize in

jargo-hackese.


"Network Security Secrets" also sports a slight, dry sense of humor.

On bulletin boards, Stang writes "Does the software include the use of

a SYSOP-editable trashcan file of caller names that are immediately

ejected ('hacker,' 'crap,' 'John Dvorak," and so on)?"  I had to laugh

at that one.


At $50, even with two diskettes, "Network Security" isn't cheap.  But

it does give you your money's worth as a reasonably detailed overview

of PC network security.


[Addendum: Stang, who represents Norman Data Defense Systems, was the

man the Secret Service called when its networks were contaminated with

the Satan Bug virus.]


------------------------------


Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 09:47:07 -0600 (CST)

From: Charles Stanford <cstanfor@BIGCAT.MISSOURI.EDU>

Subject: File 3--Apple Computers bitten by Conservatives


((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following was also reported on PBS' All

Things Considered)).


+--------- Forwarded message ----------

Date--Wed, 1 Dec 1993 08:06:04 -0600

From--"G. D. Mitchell" <mitchell@SEAS.SMU.EDU>


As a side note, Apple was originally considering building a plant in

Texas, just north of Austin (the state capital). However, the county

in which the plant was to be built decided not to extend the usual tax

break to Apple because of their policy of extending benefits to

non-married partners of Apple employees, both hetero- and homosexual.


I heard county officials stating that the communities involved were

less concerned about the possible jobs they would lose, and more

concerned with "family values". I think this is taking place in

Williamson County, fyi.  There's so many damn counties in Texas that I

probably don't know more than a fourth of them :) so I may be wrong.


I was a little pissed about this when I heard the news yesterday.

Apple was going to bring 700 jobs to Texas, but these rednecks were

too afraid that having a few gay couples in the neighborhood might

make little Johnny queer. It's stupid socially and economically. And

to think, there are times when I can almost forget that Texas IS a

backwards state.


Anyone ready to start that Nation of Freaks I was raving about a year

ago?  :)


------------------------------


Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 17:09:20 -0600

From: Jerry Whelan <guru@STASI.BRADLEY.EDU>

Subject: File 4--GAO Report on Computers and Privacy


((MODERATORS' NOTE: Thanks to Jerry Whelan for forwarding over teh GAO

report on "Communications Privacy." Here, we reprint the introduction.

The entire document can be retrieved from the CuD ftp sites or the ftp

sites listed below)).


To--rsaref-users@RSA.COM

Acknowledge-To--   KH3@NIHCU.BITNET


GAO recently issued a report "Communications Privacy:  Federal Policy

and Actions", GAO/OSI-94-2, dated November 4, 1993, that may be of

interest to members of your group.  The report focused on the

following issues:


    --The need for information privacy in computer and communications

      systems--through such means as encryption, or conversion of

      clear text to an unreadable form--to mitigate the threat of

      economic espionage to U.S. industry;


    --federal agency authority to develop cryptographic standards for

      the protection of sensitive, unclassified information and the

      actions and policies of the National Security Agency (NSA),

      Department of Defense, and of the National Institute of

      Standards and Technology (NI ST), Department of Commerce,

      regarding the selection of  federal cryptographic standards;


    --roles, actions, and policies of NSA and the Department of State

      related to export controls for products with encryption

      capabilities and industry rationale for requesting

      liberalization of such controls; and


    --the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) legislative proposal

      regarding telephone systems that use digital communications

      technology.


I have placed an electronic version of the report named OSI-94-2.TXT

in the GAO-REPORTS anonymous FTP directory at NIH (ftp.cu.nih.gov).


Joe Sokalski, GAO--Los Angeles

              kh3@cu.nih.gov


------------------------------


Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 14:54:51 EST

From: Dave Banisar <banisar@WASHOFC.CPSR.ORG>

Subject: File 5--New Docs Reveal NSA Role in FBI Digital Tele Proposal


    New Docs Reveal NSA Involvement in Digital Telephony Proposal

               From the CPSR Alert 2.06 (Dec. 1, 1993)


A series of memoranda received by CPSR from the Department of Commerce

last week indicate that the National Security Agency was actively

involved in the 1992 FBI Digital Telephony Proposal. Two weeks ago,

documents received by CPSR indicated that the FBI proposal, code named

"Operation Root Canal," was pushed forward even after reports from the

field found no cases where electronic surveillance was hampered by new

technologies. The documents also revealed that the Digital Signature

Standard was viewed by the FBI as "[t]he first step in our plan to

deal with the encryption issue."


The earliest memo is dated July 5, 1991, just a few weeks after the

Senate withdrew a Sense of Congress provision from S-266, the Omnibus

Crime Bill of 1991, that encouraged service and equipment providers to

ensure that their equipment would "permit the government to obtain the

plain text contents of voice, data and other communications...." The

documents consist of a series of fax transmittal sheets and memos from

the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Commerce to the

National Security Agency. Many attachments and drafts, including more

detailed descriptions of the  NSA's proposals, were withheld or

released with substantial deletions.


Also included in the documents is a previously released public

statement by the National Telecommunications and Information

Administration entitled "Technological Competitiveness and Policy

Concerns."  The document was requested by Rep. Jack Brooks and states

that the proposal could obstruct or distort telecommunications

technology development by limiting fiber optic transmission, ISDN,

digital cellular services and other technologies until they are

modified, ... could impair the security of business communications ...

that could facilitate not only lawful government interception, but

unlawful interception by others, [and] could impose industries ability

to offer new services and technologies.


CPSR is planning to appeal the Commerce Department's decision to

withhold many of the documents.


To subscribe to the Alert, send the message:


"subscribe cpsr <your name>" (without quotes or brackets) to

listserv@gwuvm.gwu.edu.  Back issues of the Alert are available at the

CPSR Internet Library FTP/WAIS/Gopher cpsr.org /cpsr/alert


Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a national,

non-partisan, public-interest organization dedicated to understanding

and directing the impact of computers on society. Founded in 1981,

CPSR has 2000 members from all over the world and 22 chapters across

the country. Our National Advisory Board includes a Nobel laureate and

three winners of the Turing Award, the highest honor in computer

science. Membership is open to everyone.


For more information, please contact: cpsr@cpsr.org or visit the CPSR

discussion conferences on The Well (well.sf.ca.us) or Mindvox

(phantom.com).


------------------------------


Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 18:32:54 CST

From: Jim Thomas <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>

Subject: File 6--REMINDER: CFP '94 SCHOLARSHIP DEADLINE APPROACHING


((MODERATORS' NOTE: The DEADLINE for applications for scholarships to

the Computer Freedom and Privacy '94 Conference at the Palmer House in

Chicago is 31 December.  DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE.  We are

reprinting the earlier announcement for those who may have missed it

last month.


For applicants who do not ultimately receive scholarships, the

conference organizers are attempting to find inexpensive lodging

within walking distance to the Palmer House, which is located in the

center of The Loop)).


The Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP'94) is

pleased to announce that it will once again provide a number of

full tuition scholarships for attendance at the conference. The

conference will be held in Chicago, IL from March 23rd through

March 26th, 1994 and will be hosted by the John Marshall Law

School under the chairmanship of George Trubow.


The conference traditionally attracts an extremely diverse group

of persons concerned with issues relating to the rapid

development of the "information society"; civil libertarians,

information providers, law enforcement personnel, privacy

advocates, "hackers", sociologists, educators and students,

computer professionals, cryptography advocates, government policy

makers and other interested parties have all played major roles

in the three previous conference.


Speakers at previous conferences have included Electronic

Frontier Foundation (EFF) co-founders John Perry Barlow and Mitch

Kapor, FBI Deputy Director William A. "Al" Bayse, writer Bruce

Sterling, privacy advocate Simon Davies, Harvard University law

professor Lawrence Tribe, hacker "Phiber Optik", Georgetown

University's Dorothy Denning, "Cuckoo's Egg" author Clifford

Stoll, Prodigy counsel George Perry, USA Today founder Al

Neuwith, former FCC Chairman Nicholas Johnson, Computer

Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)'s Marc Rotenberg,

Arizona prosecutor Gail Thackeray, and Bay Area Women in

Computing's Judi Clark.


The scholarships are intended to provide access to the conference

to those that would like to attend the conference but are unable

to afford the tuition. They are available to undergraduate and

graduate students in any discipline (previous student attendees

have come from computer science, law, sociology, liberal arts,

journalism, and womens' studies backgrounds), law enforcement

personnel, hackers, social scientists, and others interested in

the future of the information society.


Persons interested in a scholarship should send the following

information (e-mail greatly preferred) to:


John F. McMullen

CFP'94 Scholarship Chair

Perry Street

Jefferson Valley, NY 10535


mcmullen@panix.com

(914) 245-2734 (voice)

(914) 245-8464 (fax)


1. Personal Information -- Name, Addresses (including e-mail),

Phone Numbers, School and/or Business Affiliation


2. Short Statement explaining what the applicant helps to get

from CFP'94 and what impact that attendance may have in the

applicant's community or future work.


3. Stipulation that the applicant understands that he/she is

responsible for transportation and lodging expenses related to

the conference. The scholarship includes tuition and those meals

included with the conference.


4. Stipulation that the applicant would not be able to attend the

conference if a scholarship is not granted.


5. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will

attend the conference.


6. Stipulation that the applicant, if granted a scholarship, will

provide a written critique of the conference to the scholarship

committee by April 30, 1994.


Applications will be accepted until December 31, 1993 and

scholarship winners will be notified by approximately February 1,

1994.


Please contact John McMullen at the above e-mail address or phone

numbers with any questions.


John F. McMullen           mcmullen@mindvox.phantom.com    Consultant,

knxd@maristb.bitnet        mcmullen@well.sf.ca.us            Writer,


------------------------------


Date:         Thu, 2 Dec 1993 17:49:50 EDT

From:         Paul Hyland <PHYLAND@GWUVM.BITNET>

Subject: File 7--DIAC-94 Call for Participation


Please post and distribute to interested colleagues.


                         Call for Workshop Proposals


       Developing an Effective and Equitable Information Infrastructure


    Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing (DIAC-94) Symposium

                           Cambridge, MA, USA

                           April 23 - 24, 1994


The National Information Infrastructure (NII) is being proposed as the

next-generation "information superhighway" for the 90's and beyond.

Academia, libraries, government agencies, as well as media and

telecommunication companies are involved in the current development.

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) and other

organizations believe that critical issues regarding the use of the

NII deserve increased public visibility and participation and is using

the DIAC Symposium to help address this concern.


The DIAC-94 symposium is a two-day symposium and will consist of

presentations on the first day and workshops on the second day.  The

DIAC Symposia are held biannually and DIAC-94 will be CPSR's fifth

such conference.  We encourage your participation both through

attending and through conducting a workshop. We are currently

soliciting workshop proposals. We suggest proposals on the following

themes but any topic relating to the symposium theme is welcome.


 Systems and Services              Policy

   + Community networks              + Funding

   + Information services            + Role of government

   + Delivery of social services     + Economic modelling of networks

   + Privacy (including medical)     + Commercialization of the NII

   + Educational support             + Universal access

   + Meeting diverse needs           + Freedom of expression and

                                        community standards


 Electronic Democracy              Directions and Implications

   + Access to information           + Ubiquitous computing

   + Electronic town meetings        + Global hypertext and multimedia

   + Threats to democracy            + Computing in the workplace

   + Economic and class disparities  + Computing and the environment


 International Issues              Traditional and Virtual Communities

   + Language differences            + MUDs

   + Cultural diversity              + Communication ethics, values, and styles

   + National and international      + Gender relations in cyberspace

       priorities

   + Cooperative projects            + Networking for indigenous peoples


Workshops will be an hour and half in length.  The proposal should

include title, presenter, purpose of workshop, references, and plan.

Workshops should substantially involve the audience and proposals in

which some group product or action plan is created are preferred.  As

the proposals may be collected into a book, workshop proposals should

be clear and informative to people who don't participate in the

workshop.  Proposals are due February 15, 1994 and acceptance and

rejection notices will be sent by March 15, 1994.  To discuss

workshops or to submit proposals for workshops contact the program

chair, Doug Schuler, doug.schuler@cpsr.org.  Electronic submissions

are encouraged but paper versions are also acceptable (send them to

CPSR/Seattle - - - - DIAC '94 Workshop Submission, P.O. Box 85481,

Seattle, WA 98145-1481).


        Sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsbility


Potential co-sponsors are being sought.  Please contact us if your

organization would like to help with this event.  For more information

on co-sponsorship or on general issues, contact conference chair,

Coralee Whitcomb, cwhitcomb@bentley.edu.


------------------------------


End of Computer Underground Digest #5.91

************************************




-----------------------------------------------------------------------


     This file passed through SEA OF NOISE, +1 203 886 1441...


                          SHARE & ENJOY!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

BOTTOM LIVE script

Evidence supporting quantum information processing in animals

ARMIES OF CHAOS